Classical Greek philosophers and early Christian theologians contemplated how humans should order their souls. In the Republic, Plato described dualisms between physical bodies and tripartite souls that seek a permanent metaphysical realm, wherein superior otherworldly knowledge can be realized. Conversely, Aristotle described divine souls as the very essence of humans in the Nicomachean Ethics, and thus argued for worldly knowledge because of the entities’ interdependence. Like Plato, Augustine discussed in the City of God immortal souls that leave bodies, but recommended that humans avoid the “snare” of pursuing knowledge without the guidance of God so that their deference results in admission to Heaven. Ultimately, Plato thought humans lacked free will because of their worldly appetites and upbringings; Aristotle emphasized the cultivation of virtue and happiness with one’s “divine reason;” and Augustine promised an “eternal peace” for humans if they obeyed God’s will. Thus, they had distinguished ideas of agency.

Plato argued that humans have tripartite souls with “appetites, spirit, and reason,” and must moderate the first two and enrich the latter in order to cultivate knowledge and temperance. However, most lack agency to do so because of their worldliness. He advanced this argument when he criticized the common man as a “drone” who supersedes his logic with “unnecessary pleasures and appetites,” such as choosing gluttony over good health. Such untamed appetites may lead to destructive behavior. His shining example, however, depicts a man “sound in body and mind” who “feeds on high thoughts and questioning,” in order to calm anger (spirit) and other arousals before sleep and thus can “grasp the truth of things.” Both examples exemplify Plato’s belief in the importance of good upbringings, since they instill “order and restraint,” and prevent the emergence of “an unmanly fool” who must grow old before his inner tumult subsides. They also strengthened Plato’s dualistic view of the body and soul. Since souls’ bodily elements of appetites and spirit often conflict with their pursuits of knowledge, Plato believed in the immortality of “just souls” that separate from bodies to reach an unchanging metaphysical realm wherein truth can be realized. He noted the unreliability of worldly knowledge when he wrote, “a sensible man will remember that the eyes may be confused… by a change from light to darkness or from darkness to light.” Arguably, Plato sought to annul agency, as it takes a true determinist to view choices as bound to the appetites, upbringings, and ignorance caused by a trapped existence, and thus he wanted humans to embrace more metaphysical possibilities.

Aristotle emphasized the interdependent nature of bodies and divine souls; he argued humans should use their “divine reason” to cultivate virtuousness that “make[s] ourselves immortal.” Such virtue requires reason. He thought the soul embodied humans since they constantly perform other divine acts as well, such as helping neighbors and forming “virtuous friendships.” These acts have divinity because they exemplify righteousness. Nonetheless, he saw the rational cultivation of virtue as necessary to the “best and pleasantest [life], since reason more than anything else is man.” Essentially, he held that reason distinguishes humans from animals and provides humans with the agency to pursue “pleasures marvelous for their purity and their enduringness,” as opposed to temporary pleasures that do not cultivate “philosophic wisdom [which] is admittedly the pleasantest of virtuous activities.” Furthermore, “self-sufficiency” enables the cultivation of reasonable actions that “aim at some good,” since the philosopher, who he believed exercises the highest level of contemplation, “by himself can contemplate truth… he is the most self-sufficient.” As for those who commit unreasonable crimes, Aristotle prescribed principles of justice that would isolate them from the civil society. Unlike Plato, Aristotle argued we must harmonize with this world which implied why he pointed forward and Plato upward in the majestic School of Athens painting. Ultimately, Aristotle concluded that humans should use reason to cultivate virtue and happiness; unlike Plato, he believed humans have the agency to pursue a good life without mysterious metaphysical answers.

Unlike Aristotle, Augustine argued that humans must obey God’s will to enter the eternal “city of God” (Heaven) in the afterlife, and concern themselves with everything heavenly instead of “earthly.” This means repenting and avoiding sins, along with “preaching gospel” and avoiding the “miserable fellowship” of idolatrous people who “worship devils.” Thus, he agreed with the Greek philosophers about the necessity of virtue for souls, along with Plato’s belief in their immortality, but differed on the technicalities. First, he agreed with Plato that immortal souls separate from their bodies after death, yet specified their destinations as the physical Heaven or Hell found in the Bible, whereas Plato obscurely described a metaphysical realm. Secondly, Augustine also agreed with Plato on the irrationality of untamed appetites and viewed rational people as harborers of “peaceful souls,” which sounded similar to Plato’s “harmonized soul.” Yet, he disagreed with Plato again when he wrote, “this very pursuit of knowledge may be a snare to him unless he has a divine Master.” After all, Plato did not believe in a supreme God. Perhaps Augustine believed in free will, but he emphasized serving God, who ultimately determines the fate of humans.

Plato, Aristotle, and Augustine discussed the necessity for humans to order their souls with different approaches to agency. Yet they all shared common principles of truth, righteousness, and happiness, whether they require cultivation in metaphysical realms, the physical world, or in the Kingdom of Heaven. Each described actions that humans must take to understand the good life and be sensible citizens, and all believed Western Civilizations required such strong contributors. Thus, Aristotle’s divine man, Plato’s otherworldly human, and Augustine’s citizen of God each exemplified unique standards of ideal citizenship with rightly ordered souls.

References

[1]Augustine, “City of God,” in Hillsdale College History Faculty, eds., Western Heritage: A Reader (Hillsdale, Michigan: Hillsdale College Press, 2014), 365.

Share this:

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Published by Cole Levine

College Conservative Soapbox is a platform for spreading my perspective of what should be done. You will find that I focus more on age-old concepts than breaking news and current trends. Please feel free to engage in a discussion here. I want to hear from you.
I also have wrote for The College Fix:
https://www.thecollegefix.com/author/cole-levine-hillsdale-college/
View all posts by Cole Levine

That is the creeping force of nihilism that sometimes seems unstoppable. Why should we believe in anything if it was all merely created by humans? Philosophies, religions, culture—society itself. Why believe in it? Well unless you want to check-out of society, I think you should buy into something. Then we can have an argument about something. It is very easy to just dismiss things. Based on your comment, which I find interesting and hard to answer, I recommend you read my short story called, “The Cabin Part 1.” Ask yourself if that is the kind of life you want to live—it may just fit you for all I know. Thank you for your question. By the way, I know you like Osho—so do I. I think he was a fascinating man—an interesting existentialist.

Definitely. I taught a couple college classes, in political science. I always ask questions about the assumptions we make about what we believe. Believing it or not believing, works for whoever things about it. and that’s pretty much what life is all about. 🙂 LOL To me, we don’t have a clue what’s going on and that’s not a bad thing. We just don’t know anything for sure, or at least I don’t. I had a philosophy teacher tell us that blood is sacred and that’s why when we stick our finger we put our finger in our mouth. No one said anything so, I asked why when we cut ourselves we don’t lick that? Right? Blood is blood and if it’s sacred why do people kill each other or kill animals. Aren”t we supposed to respect things that people believe are acred? Nothing makes sense. People talk, make things up and don’t act as if they believe anything. War, battering, hunting, eating animals, wearing their skin. I don’t get it. So, I wasn’t trying to be sarcastic or an idiot, I don’t know how anyone can know that we have a soul or what it would be. Cave people didn’t believe that. Everything we know came later, when people made it up and the people in POWER were the ones who made things up to suit their own needs. That’s all I’m saying. We didn’t come with these beliefs they were give to us by others. Therefore, we can’t possibly know what’s real and what isn’t. I also have a minor in philosophy. LOLOL I hope you do well on your paper. 🙂

I wonder how hitandrun knows cave people didn’t believe they had souls. Perhaps some did and some didn’t just as we “educated” people do. I believe, hitandrun doesn’t; does that make hitandrun a caveman? No, I guess it just makes hitandrun a political science teacher with a minor in philosophy. 😀